About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
CSPAN2 3
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
CNBC 2
CNNW 1
CSPAN 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 18
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
grover norquist and the jim demint he always was. he can drive these hard right ideas, but he can also sponsor hard right candidates in republican primaries. i think he thinks he's going to be more important at the heritage foundation than he is in the senate. >> let me ask you about that, john. it looks to me not just -- the money is always a draw for some people, i'm not sure it is here. he would have been chairman of the commerce committee if the republicans had won this fight for the senate. they lost it. is it just one of the things that happens when your party loses, you look for something better to do? >> i think this is better where he's looking for a different platform where he can have a louder voice and concentrate on the issues he wants to. >> he's the chief recruiter on the right. he liked christine o'donnell and he ended up rooting for people pretty hard on the right like toomey in pennsylvania, mourdock, akin. he tried to run ron johnson against him. he wants to move the republican senate to the hardest possible right position. how can he do that if he leaves the senate?
in the outgoing 112th congress signed grover norquist's taxpayer protection pledge which is a promise to never raise taxes. at one point not signing the pledge would have been political suicide for republicans. now fears about the fiscal cliff and america's $16.3 trillion debt are pushing some, seen here, to renounce the pledge. i have been highlighting members of congress who said they are getting over grover. one of those members is tom cole of oklahoma. he signed the pledge and says he's not bound by it anymore. representative cole, a month ago you wrote allowing taxes to rise for just the top bracket may seem an acceptable middle ground by comparison. but this path would be enormously damaging to the economy, which meant you weren't going to do it. now you have been urnling your fellow congressmen to at least extend the bush era tax cuts to those making less than $250,000 and then do battle over tax cuts for the wealthy later. what changed your mind? >> first of all, nothing changed my mind. frankly you mischaracterized my position. i'm not for raising tax rates on anybody. i don't think i
or after january 1st. and they don't have to go to father professor, grover norquist. >> stephanie: exactly. representative welch thank you for giving us an update. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> stephanie: he is awesome. where is my comedy music? [♪ circus music ♪] >> stephanie: okay. gop wants to turn pour people into mulch claims ever inane stephanie miller. and technically it was jim. >> yeah. >> stephanie: should we stipulate that we don't actually thing john boner wants to turn pour people into mulch? >> yes. >> stephanie: wouldn't it be fun if he made news busters while talking about news busters. >> that's would be so funny. >> stephanie: basically it's a hilarious jim ward, but he is doing his boner imitation -- >> flabbergasted. >> stephanie: ward that's an balanced approach, lavoie hey, that is a solution. you did a whole sentence. miller, i made a chart, pour person woodchiper. ward still imitating boner, just kill all the poor people and then we'll have an balanced approach. but you would don't that because you're so popular. miller and then we'll have
and recently went off on grover norquist who wants republic office holders to sign an oath they will not raise taxes. >> the people taking the oath, the oath that he oath purpose of destroying the u.s. government. it's a kind of anarchist proposition it's a pretense that the government is completely useless and should be destroyed. therefore it is kind of a is a dishes oath, treasonous oath. people who take that oath cannot actually serve in the government with good conscience because their real role is to act as a mole and to destroy the government. >> bill: i guess is he a mind reader in addition to being a professor. here now fox business anchor john stossel. all right, now, thurman, that professor teaches at columbia private college. went to princeton private college and they can do whatever they want. that's not the discussion here. once you get into the state university systems in all five states have them then i'm paying and you are paying for these guys to run wild. shouldn't there be some kind of imposed balance? >> affirmative action for conservative thought on campus. >> they should
grover norquist they would never raise taxes, it certainly seems that the impasse cannot be solved and we got to -- go over the cliff. not only do the hard liners refuse to rise above partisanship in order to avoid a government man-dated recession, which is what it's amounted to doing, but we can't even get them to promise no vacation without legislation! >> boo! >> they not only seem mean-spirited, petty, reckless, and angry down there in washington, they're also slothful. have you ever been able to say to your boss, walk in, you know, hey, man i know i've got a huge project due, one that could bring down the whole company, but darn it all, hey, see you later, sport, i'm taking a vacation. i'm out of here! not only do i advocate no vacation without legislation, i want to know, a new one for you. a litmus test. i want to know which of these bitter politicians have tickets in their pockets to fly out of washington next week. i'm not kidding. i think we should ask each politician we interview, have you purchased tickets to leave without getting your job done. what's the date on that ticket?
to spend on. host: do you agree with the grover norquist tax pledge to not raise taxes? caller: in service of the tax rates? yes, i do. i am also left scratching my head because i believe when the bush tax cuts were put into effect that many democrats oppose those as being bad for the economy. yet, and now, they are running around saying we cannot let the rates go back to the talks rates that we set up under president clinton -- the tax rates go back. what let's stick out with came out yesterday from the republicans. they want to bring in new revenue from tax reform, $800 billion being their calculations. do you agree with some who say that is increasing taxes? caller: yes and no. it depends. i would agree with that form of tax revenue increase if it went with spendingd reductions. host: that is where you see compromise? caller: we have been through this before. i have friends that frequently site back in reagan's presidency that president reagan increased taxes, but he did that as a consequence of an agreement with the democratic leadership with the democratic leadership
and deductions by which the grover norquist pledge to not raise taxes. >> guest: it's not up to me to say what they leap and what doesn't. keeping tax rates where they are is the real question. you can increase revenue without increasing tax rate honestly just a more efficient system that redistributes investments away from loopholes for things that generate economic growth and that is something that paul ryan of coors has been a leading advocate of. this is a really good proposal by the speaker and now is pleased to see a republican signoff. i think hopefully the white house understands that mean the unity of the republican leadership table, you sure you do sanity in the republican congress. >> host: use a copy of the letter with the leadership team including paul ryan, chairman of the budget committee. a lot of callers had to about the lack of details proposal appeared well to pull deductions to get rid of in order to bring in more revenue? >> guest: , a gun, there's an interesting debate and discussion on not naturally negotiating. the easiest way to do it discount the dollar amount and let
on what will hopefully be a productive discussion padilla >> host: does that violate the grover norquist pledge to not raise taxes? >> guest: it's not up to me to decide what violates and what doesn't but i don't think so. i think keeping tax rates where they are is the question and you can increase revenue without increasing the tax rate partly by that and a more efficient system. it distributes investments away from the nonproductive loopholes towards things that generate economic growth and that's something that paul ryan has been a leading advocate of. so i think this is a really smart proposal by the speaker, and it was -- i was pleased to see every republican. it wasn't just his name. it was extremely significant. hopefully the white house understands that means a unity of the republican leadership at that table, and if there's unity there i assure you there is in the republican conference. >> host: here's a letter to the white house with of the signatures of the leadership team including paul ryan of the budget committee. a lot of the callers have talked about the lack of detail i
, after all the debate in washington, that violates the grover norquist americans for tax reform pledge. because you took away a tax break without giving an additional tax breaks or else. what we ought to do is give a break to our kids. >> host: next call, baby, you've been very patient. go ahead. >> caller: yes, but it's an honor to talk to you. pleasure to listen to you. i have two comments come one and social security. i the brother who is in his '60s and his two children under the age of 18. he received $1200 a month in social security. i about dropped when i heard that because him and his wife do not need that money. >> guest: how old is he? >> caller: 67 i think the. i never even knew that older americans who have children, were allowed to get social sturdy for the children. i was floored. if i am you know, interpreting this record the other comment was you are so right if the consumer had some money in the game as far as health care, i remember when our co-pay was $15 but i think i overuse my medical interest but as soon as it went to $25, i woke up and went, i don't want to pay
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)